My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2024
>
031924
>
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2024 2:26:47 PM
Creation date
3/19/2024 2:24:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
3/19/2024
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
228
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Since the various boundaries affecting the subject properties is important to the Council’s <br />considerations, a larger scale version of Figure 2 from the February 20 agenda report is included as <br />Attachment 1 to this memo, to show the various boundaries more clearly. Note that Livermore’s SOI <br />boundary is coterminous with Pleasanton’s SOI, with Livermore’s SOI encompassing the area to the <br />north and east of the boundary; and Pleasanton’s SOI the area to the south and west. <br /> <br />Summary of Analysis and Recommendation <br />As outlined in the February 20 Agenda Report, staff is supportive of Livermore’s request, for the <br />following reasons: <br /> <br />• SMP-39 is outside of Pleasanton’s voter-approved Urban Growth Boundary, but within <br />Livermore’s UGB. The UGB generally reflects the area desired or anticipated to represent the <br />outer limit of urbanized development of the city, as endorsed by the voters. SMP-40 is also <br />within Livermore’s UGB, as well as its SOI. <br /> <br />• SMP-39 and 40 are both contiguous to the current Livermore City limit, whereas neither are <br />contiguous to the Pleasanton City limit. Even if the 20-acre Steelwave property (which lies within <br />Pleasanton’s SOI and UGB); and SMP-38 were annexed, SMP-39 would still not be contiguous <br />to the new Pleasanton City limit because several other properties separate them. <br /> <br />• SMP-39 and 40 would not be able to be readily served by utilities from Pleasanton, which <br />currently terminate north of Arroyo Mocho and west of El Charro Road. Conversely, due to the <br />adjacency of incorporated Livermore, utilities can be extended relatively easily from Livermore <br />to both properties from the north or east. <br /> <br />For the reasons noted above, it is unlikely that SMP-39 or 40 would ever be developed in Pleasanton; <br />thus, unlikely that Pleasanton would ever have benefitted from any new tax revenue associated with <br />these parcels. Based on consideration of all existing and probably future boundaries, in staff’s view it is <br />logical and appropriate for the properties to be annexed and developed in Livermore. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Page 14 of 228
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.